Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

"And in other news, just in, sources close to the BBC have disclosed that The Pope may in fact be a Catholic..."

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:55 pm

There is a documentary about this on tonight.

Whether he was a pedo or not- the truth will come out, one thing I found disturbing was his apparent backing of Gary Glitter in an interview in 09, basically stating Glitter had not really done anything wrong!!!!!! If this was his way of thinking, then there certainly was something wrong with him.

Glitter should have been strung up with the B***s and left. If Mr Saville has been involved in similar crimes and as reported, people within power and others knew about this "open secret" - they should be brought to account .

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:06 pm

i reckon its defo true..this is what he said about gary glitter...

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:10 pm

These girls were 14 or 15 years old. What did he think? That he was in the USA?That he was Elvis Presley or Jerry Lee Lewis?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:14 pm

The TV Programme is called 'Exposure' - The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile' and will be screened between 23.10 hrs and 0005 hrs on Wednesday 3rd October, 2012 on ITV1 in the UK.

Brian

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:02 pm

Cant post my message.site wont work on pc .only works on phone.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:08 pm

Why did they not say this long ago rather than after he is dead?.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:05 pm

daylon wrote:There is a documentary about this on tonight.

Whether he was a pedo or not- the truth will come out, one thing I found disturbing was his apparent backing of Gary Glitter in an interview in 09, basically stating Glitter had not really done anything wrong!!!!!! If this was his way of thinking, then there certainly was something wrong with him.

Glitter should have been strung up with the B***s and left. If Mr Saville has been involved in similar crimes and as reported, people within power and others knew about this "open secret" - they should be brought to account .

agree, bit weird the comment about Glitter......

sad on the other hand because of all the money he raised......

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:05 pm

There have been serious rumours about this for years, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:16 pm

I'm very annoyed at all this crap.

Jimmy is an easy target.

He looked weird - behaved in a very quirky manner for his whole life - he never married and therefore has no very close family (kids, wives etc) - he's recently dead.

Mmmmm.

Let's make an easy buck out of ruining a man who can no longer defend himself.

The people making the allegations should have made them known at the time. Let's say, you're aware of a man abusing kids in the 70s, and then you spend the entire 80s and 90s watching him weekly on TV, presenting shows which feature him making children's dreams come true - and hearing about his endless selfless charity work for children's hospitals - you're aware of the time this guy spends with all these vulnerable kids and yet you do NOTHING and say NOTHING to prevent anything happening to them??

Bollocks to you.

It saddens me to be reading this so soon after his death. I certainly smell a rat.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:01 pm

agree, its hypocritical if they knew, and kept quiet because of the £££ he raised. That's what I dislike about this sort of 'witch hunting' after someone has died

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:22 pm

I have to agree with SLGM. His post was spot on. It is totally unfair for 'friends' to come out with their 'suspicions' a year after the man is buried. What is the point of this? Will a prosecution be made? No.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:21 am

Delboy wrote:I have to agree with SLGM. His post was spot on. It is totally unfair for 'friends' to come out with their 'suspicions' a year after the man is buried. What is the point of this? Will a prosecution be made? No.

Im with you both on this

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:47 am

After the guy is DEAD?? What is the point, then? If it was some kid with their story, but just a news item . . . that's cold.

14, 15 is not pedophilia. It's statutory rape. Doesn't make it better, but . . .

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

He looked weird - behaved in a very quirky manner for his whole life - he never married and therefore has no very close family (kids, wives etc) - he's recently dead.

Mmmmm.

Let's make an easy buck out of ruining a man who can no longer defend himself.

The people making the allegations should have made them known at the time. Let's say, you're aware of a man abusing kids in the 70s, and then you spend the entire 80s and 90s watching him weekly on TV, presenting shows which feature him making children's dreams come true - and hearing about his endless selfless charity work for children's hospitals - you're aware of the time this guy spends with all these vulnerable kids and yet you do NOTHING and say NOTHING to prevent anything happening to them??

Bollocks to you.

It saddens me to be reading this so soon after his death. I certainly smell a rat.

Great post !

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:35 pm

The rumours have been around for year, and I'm certainly not going to condone him for doing what he did - if he did it. I think there is likely some truth in all of this, although I agree that 15 doesn't seem to be paedophilia but more of a rape situation (and I don't think the teacher who ran off to France with his pupil "abducted" her either!) - but these terms are ones that we are stuck with whether we like it or not. And I'm not sure that saying he raped these girls makes it any better.

So, let's say he was guilty of all this - and evidence presented to us so far suggests he was guilty of something. The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?" I've never had a similar situation, but I wonder why, some three decades after the event, I would spill all to the media when I knew that no justice could ever take place. I can't see where it would do me any good - or anyone else any good. It's not like this is a warning to other girls about this man...because he is dead.

I'm not saying these women are wrong in coming forward, I just don't see what can be acheived except possibly a cheque in the back pocket for selling the sordid affair to a newspaper or magazine.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:55 pm

poormadpeter wrote:The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?" I've never had a similar situation, but I wonder why, some three decades after the event, I would spill all to the media when I knew that no justice could ever take place. I can't see where it would do me any good - or anyone else any good. It's not like this is a warning to other girls about this man...because he is dead.

1. I have no idea who this person "JS" is.

2. "What is all of this going to achieve"? The truth? Justice? What he really was like?

3. Why three decades later? I am just guessing here but...He had, perhaps more money, to spend on a trail than these girls/women.

4. Can´t see where it would do anyone any good? As an example not to go/thrust just anyone. Good enough?

5. As I earlier said, I have no knowledge of this "JS" person, just commenting on some people who act like they do...

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:02 am

Scarre wrote:

poormadpeter wrote:The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?" I've never had a similar situation, but I wonder why, some three decades after the event, I would spill all to the media when I knew that no justice could ever take place. I can't see where it would do me any good - or anyone else any good. It's not like this is a warning to other girls about this man...because he is dead.

1. I have no idea who this person "JS" is.

2. "What is all of this going to achieve"? The truth? Justice? What he really was like?Exactly. What is that going to achieve for these women? What good is it going to do them? They probably aren't going to get compensation or anything like that as it will probably never be proven?3. Why three decades later? I am just guessing here but...He had, perhaps more money, to spend on a trail than these girls/women.A trail of what? While these women were 15 at the time this happened, they could have gone to the police when they were 25, 35 or even 40 -but they wait until the man in question is dead. It's not like they didn't see that coming. 4. Can´t see where it would do anyone any good? As an example not to go/thrust just anyone. Good enough?No, it will be an example that people can away with as Jimmy Saville seemingly did during his lifetime. 5. As I earlier said, I have no knowledge of this "JS" person, just commenting on some people who act like they do...

Again, I'm not saying he was right to do what he did - if he did it. I'm just confused by the whole "let's tell the world now that he's dead" thing. That side of it doesn't make sense.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:19 am

poormadpeter wrote:

Scarre wrote:

poormadpeter wrote:The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?" I've never had a similar situation, but I wonder why, some three decades after the event, I would spill all to the media when I knew that no justice could ever take place. I can't see where it would do me any good - or anyone else any good. It's not like this is a warning to other girls about this man...because he is dead.

1. I have no idea who this person "JS" is.

2. "What is all of this going to achieve"? The truth? Justice? What he really was like?Exactly. What is that going to achieve for these women? What good is it going to do them? They probably aren't going to get compensation or anything like that as it will probably never be proven?3. Why three decades later? I am just guessing here but...He had, perhaps more money, to spend on a trail than these girls/women.A trail of what? While these women were 15 at the time this happened, they could have gone to the police when they were 25, 35 or even 40 -but they wait until the man in question is dead. It's not like they didn't see that coming. 4. Can´t see where it would do anyone any good? As an example not to go/thrust just anyone. Good enough?No, it will be an example that people can away with as Jimmy Saville seemingly did during his lifetime. 5. As I earlier said, I have no knowledge of this "JS" person, just commenting on some people who act like they do...

Again, I'm not saying he was right to do what he did - if he did it. I'm just confused by the whole "let's tell the world now that he's dead" thing. That side of it doesn't make sense.

Sorry if I´m not clear enough. English is my third language.

Point 1. To get the thruth out there. No matter if they get any "compensation". If he did it...go right ahead. Get it?Point 3. Perhaps the girls/women did not have the money to spend on a trail to prove their case? Is that clear enough?Point 4. And your proof?

Like I said. I have no knowledge of this person "JS". Just commenting members comments...

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:54 am

poormadpeter wrote: The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?"

I would say that if you were a woman who had been abused by somebody, and you had told your parents, and they had refused to believe you - then you spent the last 40 years hearing rumours about that person doing it to others, while at the same time he was knighted and treated like a saint... Maybe you would finally want to be proved right.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:31 am

The Pirate wrote:

poormadpeter wrote: The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?"

I would say that if you were a woman who had been abused by somebody, and you had told your parents, and they had refused to believe you - then you spent the last 40 years hearing rumours about that person doing it to others, while at the same time he was knighted and treated like a saint... Maybe you would finally want to be proved right.

Quite possibly. And I confess to not having seen the documentary, so I'm only going by what I have read. But surely they could have proven themselves right before now? These allegations and rumours are nothing new. A newspaper would have snapped up this story in an instant; I really don't buy into the whole thing that the newspapers backed off because of his charity work. Either way, the story is out there now.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:43 am

poormadpeter wrote: A newspaper would have snapped up this story in an instant; I really don't buy into the whole thing that the newspapers backed off because of his charity work. Either way, the story is out there now.

What all of this has shown is that newspaper editors and other people in the media were aware of the allegations for the last four decades, and yet they didn't 'snap up the story in an instant'. Some of the women concerned tried to get their story investigated while Savile was alive, and got nowhere.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:56 am

It's quite possible the girls in question were scared to say anything before he died cos of the type of man he was, there were 5 instances where girls as young as 14 did complain to the police between 1972 and 2007 and the CPS said there were in sufficent evidence to prosecute, that could mean that the child in question refused to stand up in court, this to the CPS is classed as "Insuffiicent evidence". I personally believe after what he said about Gary Glitter, that he must have been a twisted evil person, no one in their right mind would say that Glitter didn't do anything wrong, unless he also was a member of the paedophile underworld. To diversify for a moment, no radio station in the UK will play Glitters songs, but they play the Bay City Rollers, who's drummer was convicted of paedophilia, and they play Michael Jacksons, oh of course Jacko didn't do anything did he - stars pay millions of dollars to children in out of court settlements when they're innocent,silly me!!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:39 am

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:It's quite possible the girls in question were scared to say anything before he died cos of the type of man he was, there were 5 instances where girls as young as 14 did complain to the police between 1972 and 2007 and the CPS said there were in sufficent evidence to prosecute, that could mean that the child in question refused to stand up in court, this to the CPS is classed as "Insuffiicent evidence". I personally believe after what he said about Gary Glitter, that he must have been a twisted evil person, no one in their right mind would say that Glitter didn't do anything wrong, unless he also was a member of the paedophile underworld. To diversify for a moment, no radio station in the UK will play Glitters songs, but they play the Bay City Rollers, who's drummer was convicted of paedophilia, and they play Michael Jacksons, oh of course Jacko didn't do anything did he - stars pay millions of dollars to children in out of court settlements when they're innocent,silly me!!

Well, the media is full of hypocrisy - with the Glitter/Bay City Rollers situation, it is a case than Glitter was the personality at the heart of his recordings, whereas a drummer is (at least visually) in the background and generally not the frontman of the group. Again, I'm not saying that's right, but it's just the way it is. As for Jackson, he was never convicted, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If that means a few slip through the net, then sadly that's a price that has to be paid - but possibly better that than people being found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

As for the Saville situation, if there were five different complaints from five different people, then surely investigations should have taken place, even if charges were not eventually brought? If those investigations did take place, then they would have somehow leaked? Which, in turn, makes it seem as if proper investigations did not take place - and questions of cover-ups on the part of the police are going to have to be answered.